ASTD Charlotte – Day of Learning – Handout and Other Relevent Resources

Today, December 4, 2013,  I am doing a session at the local ASTD chapter’s annual

Day of Learning

Session Title: Performance & Enabler Analysis

Here is a PDF of my 8-page handout : ASTD DoL Handout 8-pager and here are the slides (PDF): Slides for ASTD Charlotte DoL – gww 2013-12-03

The Performance Analysis portion of the session used my Areas of Performance (AoPs) configuration approach for analysis of a Process or Process-set, and then that led into the session’s conclusion of an analysis of the Enablers.

Slide6

Understanding Performance Requirements is one thing.

Then there are the enablers.

Here is the EPPI Enabler graphic…

EPPI Fishbone v2012 - 1- The Process

 

A chapter (#11) from Handbook of Human Performance Technology – covers the topic in much greater depth:

Modeling Mastery Performance and Systematically Deriving the Enablers for Performance Improvement – by Guy W. Wallace, CPT – Chapter 11 of the Handbook of Human Performance Technology – 3rd Edition.  This methodology was first published in this 1984 article in ISPI’s (then NSPI’s) PIJ in November 1984.

Slide28 (2)

Performance Measures: Whose Requirements Are To Be Met?

Here next is something to help you think through the specifics of the Stakeholders and their Requirements in your processes, process by process. It’s complex, but knowing the downstream requirements for your Process’ Products/Outputs is critical to improving performance. And knowing what some of the Requirements may be for your Process itself.

Some Stakeholders care about Products, some care about Process, and some care about both.

This one version of a Stakeholder Hierarchy below puts Social Responsibility at the top – as in the top Stakeholder – to over-rule any lower level Stakeholders if their Requirements conflict. They win any conflict because they are at the top… of the hierarchy.

Stakeholder Hierachy Example 1

Your situation may vary. Your Hierarchy will have specific Stakeholders for each of these (and additional) categories. See the article info and link below.

Adopt what you can and Adapt the rest.

Generalizing your Stakeholders may not be the wise thing to do. It may be disastrous doing things simply one way, or the other way.

Your situation might even require you to understand some of the Tier 2 Stakeholders – the Stakeholders of your Tier 1 Stakeholders.

To be more robust to likely, future changes from the marketplace – of Stakeholders.

Your Stakeholders’ Requirements might require that your Processes be a blend, something flexible, loose-tight, some times in-tight control, other times not in such tight control, some times measured, and other times not measured at all….

01-LiMl 66155-Lessons_in_Maki-sfull

As always, it depends.

Think that through too. The wisdom of generalizing Stakeholders and their specific, unique Requirements. Sometimes it may be safe to do so. Other times, not.

Generalized competencies is a prime example IMO.

If the Competencies themselves are not linked firmly, directly to the different aspects of real-world performance, they won’t be effective, nor efficient in all of that ineffectiveness.

That would be a waste of resources.

And that’s just not Good Stewardship.

Focus on the Performance Requirements – and Enable Them

Some of my recent writings on this topic are part of an overall set of writings on my ISD and PI – Instructional Systems Design and Performance Improvement – models, methodologies, tools and techniques.

One of many free article/publication PDF:

The Customer Is King – Not! – 15 page PDF – the original version of the article published in the Journal for Quality and Participation in March 1995 – address Balancing Conflicting Stakeholder Requirements, and suggests that the Customer is Not the King of Stakeholders (despite the unfortunate slogans from the Quality movement despite Deming’s admonitions about slogans).

For other free resources see the Resources Tab.

Here are a few more – related to my session today – from the oldest articles (1984) to articles more recent:

CAD – Training Mag – 1984 – 6 page PDF – the first publication about Curriculum Architecture Design via a Group Process – published in Training Magazine in September 1984. Original manuscript (30 pages) – How to Build a Training Structure That Won’t Keep Burning Down.

Models and Matrices- NSPI PIJ -1984 – 5 page PDF – the first publication of the performance and enabler analysis methods for ISD, from NSPI’s (ISPI’s) Performance & Instruction Journal, November 1984.

Perf Modeling & Enabler Analysis – HR-Com – 2003 – 17 page PDF – an online publication at HR.Com in 2003 covering the analysis of both Performance Competence Requirements and the Enablers – part of my ISD (PACT) and Performance Improvement (EPPI) methods.

CAD – ASTD – 2004 – 5 page PDF – an overview of when to do a Curriculum Architecture Design effort, the outputs of the effort by phase, and the 4 phases of a Curriculum Architecture design effort, published in ASTD’s Links in 2004.

There are many more articles for free in the Resources Tab. Check that out.

And then there is this…for a fee…

Slide4

Thank you ASTD Charlotte – for the opportunity to present today!

Please share any feedback!

# # #

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s